Americans United - Becket Fund for Religious Libertyhttps://au.org/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty
enN.M. Approves Textbook Loans For Sectarian Schoolshttps://au.org/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/nm-approves-textbook-loans-for-sectarian-schools
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that the state government may continue providing textbooks to private, sectarian schools. Paul Weinbaum and Cathy Moses filed suit to end the lending program, arguing that it violated a provision of the state constitution that prohibits public aid for religious education.</p><p>The court found that because the textbooks are secular in nature, the state committed no constitutional offense, reported the Associated Press. It additionally ruled that the provision against aid to religious schools was meant to keep public schools secular, rather than to forbid all aid to sectarian schools. The court also noted that the state retained total control over the material, which helped ensure a uniform education standard for all students.</p><p>The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty, a Religious Right legal group, argued that the state’s no-aid-to-religion amendment was rooted in anti-Catholicism. However, legal scholars have pointed out that many states have such amendments, which were designed to ensure tax funding of public schools. (<em>Moses and Weinbaum v. Skandera</em>)</p></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-cs-department field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">AU Bulletin</div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/other-government-aid-religious-schools">Other Government Aid to Religious Schools</a></span></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-cs-issue field-type-node-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Magazine Issue:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><article id="node-10697" class="node node-church-state-issue clearfix">
<header>
<div class="image">
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="https://au.org/files/styles/cs_cover_thumbnail/public/Dec%2014%20Web%20cover.jpg?itok=_v9Uch8U" width="75" height="96" alt="" /></div></div></div> </div>
<h2><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state">
The <span class="cs-month field">December</span> <span class="cs-year field"><span class="date-display-single">2014</span></span> issue of <em>Church &amp; State</em>
</a></h2>
<span class="read-more">
<a href="/church-state">Browse previous issues &raquo;</a>
</span>
</header>
<div class="content">
<div class="frontpage-block frontpage-view-church-state-articles-featured-articles" >
<h3>Featured Articles</h3>
<div class="content">
<div class="view view-church-state-articles view-id-church_state_articles view-display-id-featured_articles view-dom-id-25c939e975bd0c9536bf4110f25180bc">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first">
<h3 class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/featured/apocalypse-now">Apocalypse Now?</a></h3>
<h4>Religious Right Groups Say The Supreme Court&#039;s Refusal To Hear Marriage Equality Cases Will Spell The End Of Western Civilization</h4> </div>
<div class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even">
<h3 class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/featured/taboo-in-tallahassee">Taboo In Tallahassee</a></h3>
<h4>Fla. Officials Say They Have The Right To Eject &#039;Offensive&#039; Holiday Symbols From Statehouse</h4> </div>
<div class="views-row views-row-3 views-row-odd">
<h3 class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/featured/poison-pens">Poison Pens</a></h3>
<h4>Americans United Letter Warning Against Pulpit Politicking Generates Angry Replies From Some Clergy</h4> </div>
<div class="views-row views-row-4 views-row-even views-row-last">
<h3 class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/featured/world-of-trouble">World Of Trouble</a></h3>
<h4>A U.S.-Based Movement Seeks To Forge A Global Alliance For Faith, Family, And Fundamentalism</h4> </div>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div><div class="lower clearfix"><div class="frontpage-block frontpage-view-church-state-articles-all-articles" >
<div class="content">
<div class="view view-church-state-articles view-id-church_state_articles view-display-id-all_articles view-dom-id-bb4652f6288221e2ad23fffa56003a2b">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="cs-department" id="section-au-bulletin"> <h3>AU Bulletin</h3>
<ul class="cs-department-list"> <li class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/navy-approves-military-s-first-atheist-lay">Navy Approves Military’s First Atheist Lay Leader</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/mat-staver-leaves-liberty-school-of-law">Mat Staver Leaves Liberty School Of Law</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-3 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/contraception-mandate-setback-in-fla-case">Contraception Mandate Setback In Fla. Case </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-4 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/nm-approves-textbook-loans-for-sectarian-schools">N.M. Approves Textbook Loans For Sectarian Schools</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-5 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/alaska-town-assembly-rejects-sectarian-prayer"> Alaska Town Assembly Rejects Sectarian Prayer</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-6 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/ariz-school-board-censors-abortion-information">Ariz. School Board Censors Abortion Information</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-7 views-row-odd views-row-last">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/around-the-world-egypt-jails-men-for-attending">Around The World: Egypt Jails Men For Attending Same-Sex Wedding</a></span> </div></li>
</ul></div><div class="cs-department" id="section-perspective"> <h3>Perspective</h3>
<ul class="cs-department-list"> <li class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/perspective/the-separation-saga-making-a-book-on-25-years-of">The Separation Saga: Making A Book On 25 Years Of Activism</a></span> </div></li>
</ul></div><div class="cs-department" id="section-editorial"> <h3>Editorial</h3>
<ul class="cs-department-list"> <li class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/editorial/the-subpoena-saga-the-houston-incident-was-a">The Subpoena Saga: The Houston Incident Was A Misstep, Not Persecution </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even views-row-last">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/editorial/a-prayer-for-common-sense-evangelical-offers">A Prayer For Common Sense: Evangelical Offers Straight Thinking On Religion</a></span> </div></li>
</ul></div><div class="cs-department" id="section-people--events"> <h3>People &amp; Events</h3>
<ul class="cs-department-list"> <li class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/investigative-journalist-named-au-s-person-of">Investigative Journalist Named AU’s ‘Person Of The Year’ At Meeting</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-2 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/texas-textbooks-get-some-improvements-but">Texas Textbooks Get Some Improvements, But Problems Remain, Say Critics </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-3 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/religious-right-groups-exploit-flap-over">Religious Right Groups Exploit Flap Over Houston Subpoenas</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-4 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/election-results-point-to-reopening-of-culture">Election Results Point To Reopening Of ‘Culture Wars’ In Congress </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-5 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/fundamentalist-seminary-seeks-to-raise-up-new">Fundamentalist Seminary Seeks To Raise Up New Band Of ‘Christian’-Tinged Businesses</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-6 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/public-education-is-more-dangerous-than">Public Education Is More Dangerous Than Terrorism, Says CBN Correspondent </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-7 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/md-dad-threatens-school-over-islam-lesson-in">Md. Dad Threatens School Over Islam Lesson In High School Curriculum </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-8 views-row-even">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/bikers-pledge-to-defend-mich-cross-as">Bikers Pledge To Defend Mich. Cross As Community Groups Seek Compromise</a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-9 views-row-odd">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/ky-officials-finally-blink-over-public-aid-to">Ky. Officials Finally Blink Over Public Aid To Creationist ‘Ark Park’ </a></span> </div></li>
<li class="views-row views-row-10 views-row-even views-row-last">
<div class="views-field views-field-title"> <span class="field-content"><a href="/church-state/december-2014-church-state/people-events/former-au-attorney-and-separation-advocate-lee">Former AU Attorney And Separation Advocate Lee Boothby Dies At 81 </a></span> </div></li>
</ul></div> </div>
</div> </div>
</div></div> </div> <!-- /.content -->
<footer>
<ul class="links inline"><li class="comment_forbidden first last"></li>
</ul> <!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style ">
<a class="addthis_button_facebook_like" fb:like:layout="button_count"></a>
<a class="addthis_button_tweet"></a>
<a class="addthis_button_google_plusone" g:plusone:size="medium"></a>
<a class="addthis_counter addthis_pill_style"></a>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=americansunited"></script>
<!-- AddThis Button END -->
</footer>
</article> <!-- /.node -->
</div></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span></div></div>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:08:49 +0000Timothy Ritz10718 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/church-state/december-2014-church-state/au-bulletin/nm-approves-textbook-loans-for-sectarian-schools#commentsBecket Or Wreck It?: Little-Known Religious Right Group At Heart Of Hobby Lobby Case https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/becket-or-wreck-it-little-known-religious-right-group-at-heart-of-hobby
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Americans United was founded to push the nation forward. The view of the group’s founders was that only a strict application of separation of church and state could achieve that goal.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>The Supreme Court’s recent (and horrendous) <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-dismayed-by-high-court-ruling-restricting-birth-control-access">ruling in the Hobby Lobby case</a> dealing with workers’ access to contraceptives has turned the spotlight on the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group that sponsored many of the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.</p><p>Profiles of the group and its founder, Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson, appeared in <em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/founder-of-hobby-lobbys-law-firm-pioneered-the-debate-over-religious-freedom/2014/06/30/f128d4d2-e04b-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html">The Washington Post</a></em> and the Salt Lake City <em><a href="http://www.aberdeennews.com/life/religion/becket-fund-makes-its-mark-by-testing-limits-of-religious/article_f2aedd1d-9e39-55c7-9432-e113e6545824.html">Deseret News</a></em>. Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn was quoted in both stories.</p><p>Lynn would be the first to agree that on a personal level, Hasson is charming and affable. Having met him once myself, I’m inclined to agree. Unlike a lot of the Religious Right figures I’ve met over the years, the down-to-earth Hasson is not dour and has a way of putting people at ease.</p><p>You might enjoy quaffing a beer with Hasson, but that doesn’t mean he’s right about “culture war” issues. In fact, he couldn’t be more wrong. Furthermore, Hasson has been dealing with some serious health issues lately, and in his absence the Becket Fund is being run by a man named William P. Mumma.</p><p>A flavor of Mumma’s views can perhaps be discerned in a comment he made to the <em>Deseret News</em> about Americans United: “The truth is the organization was founded in 1947, has made the same arguments for decades. And in the 22 years Barry has headed the organization, has seen the American public and the Supreme Court turn decisively away from American United's faded arguments.”</p><p>Let’s unpack that a bit. It’s true that Americans United was founded in 1947. That was the year of a famous Supreme Court church-state ruling called <em>Everson v. Board of Education</em>. In <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_52">that decision</a>, a unanimous high court endorsed the wall of separation between church and state. But the decision also contained troubling signs that the court was willing to embrace some forms of taxpayer aid to religion.</p><p>Americans United’s founders were concerned. And that wasn’t the only thing that concerned them.</p><p>From a church-state perspective, the America of 1947 would be unrecognizable to many people today. In many states, it was illegal for anyone – even married couples – to use birth control. Books, magazines, movies and stage plays were subjected to religiously-based censorship. Many public schools began the day with mandatory Christian prayers and/or Bible reading. In some states, it was illegal to teach evolution. Women had very few rights; economically, they were dependent on their husbands. Jews were not permitted to join certain organizations, and anti-Semitic prejudice was common. Needless to say, gay people stayed deep in the closet. Atheists tended to keep a low profile as well. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. were few and far between and didn’t press for their rights.</p><p>AU’s founders looked at this situation and knew that it had to change. To be fair, some of these issues – like gay rights – weren’t on the minds of many people back then and were added to the plate later. But, by grasping the idea that society should not have to bow to the dominant religious view, AU (and other organizations) helped pave the way for a fairer, more just nation.</p><p>In short, AU was founded to push the nation forward. The view of the group’s founders was that only a strict application of separation of church and state could achieve that goal.</p><p>Did we win every battle? Of course not. But if you look at American society today and compare it to 1947, you can’t help but be impressed. We’re a freer, more open nation. Obviously, many factors, many individuals and many organizations played a role in these changes. But the point is that things did change – for the better.</p><p>Mumma asserts that the American public has rejected AU’s arguments. He needs to look at the <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/poll-hobby-lobby-most-against-limiting-coverage-108425.html">polling data</a> over the issue of contraceptive access. It’s not even close; his side is losing. People are angry over the Hobby Lobby ruling. In my 26 years at Americans United, I have not seen a church-state ruling that got people so fired up. If Mumma thinks the Hobby Lobby ruling is the end of this discussion, he is sadly deluded.</p><p>I’d recommend that Mumma also take a look at the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html">polls</a> on the issue of same-sex marriage, which his group has <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/genderandsexualitylawblog/2013/06/13/taking-too-many-liberties/">steadfastly opposed</a>. The ground is shifting beneath his feet. All of the snarky comments in the world won’t change that. The culture – not the courts – is leading here. As more and more Americans come to realize that true love and committed relationships are always worth celebrating, Mumma and his band of latter-day theocrats will be left behind, scratching their heads and fulminating that everyone should to listen to them. But they’ll be screaming into a void with fewer and fewer Americans listening.</p><p>Yes, Americans United was founded in 1947. Yes, we are making the same arguments for a secular state based on the separation of church and state that we made 67 years ago (and that leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made 224 years ago). We make those arguments because they work; we make them because they protect the right of conscience and true liberty. We will continue to make them no matter how many lousy decisions Becket and its allies on the Religious Right wrench from this reactionary Supreme Court.</p><p>Our organization celebrates its past but recognizes that 1947 was just the beginning. We don’t want to go back there. I’m tempted to say that the Becket Fund does. But the truth is, given that group’s repressive vision for society and its belief that we should all knuckle under to the dictates of ultra-orthodox religious groups, its model for America actually comes from another time period – more like 1247.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage-including-same-sex-marriage">Marriage (including same-sex Marriage)</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/kevin-hasson">Kevin Hasson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/william-mumma">William Mumma</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/everson-v-board-education">Everson v. Board of Education</a></span></div></div>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:07:48 +0000Rob Boston10235 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/becket-or-wreck-it-little-known-religious-right-group-at-heart-of-hobby#commentsNew Round, Old Fight: Why The Religious Right Rejects The Obama Compromise Over Birth Controlhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/new-round-old-fight-why-the-religious-right-rejects-the-obama-compromise
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> No matter what the Obama administration does on contraceptive access, far-right religious groups are never satisfied.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>I continue to be amazed that in the year 2013 our nation continues to grapple with the issue of access to contraceptives, a matter most advanced nations laid to rest long ago.</p><p>On Friday, the Obama administration made another attempt to address the concerns of conservative religious employers who say they don’t want to provide birth control for employees. Once again, it’s not going well.</p><p>A little history: When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it contained provisions allowing the administration to issue regulations concerning what type of health care coverage employers would be required to offer. Contraceptives are included in the baseline care package because so many Americans use birth control, and it plays an important role in preventative care. (Plus, it has medicinal uses.)</p><p>Under the original proposal, houses of worship were exempt from the requirement to include birth control coverage. But religiously affiliated nonprofits such as colleges and hospitals – that hire people of many faiths, serve the general public and often are government-subsidized – were required to provide insurance plans that included contraception. Businesses and other for-profit enterprises were required to do as well.</p><p>The Catholic bishops and the Religious Right responded to this arrangement by filing a <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2013-church-state/featured/conscience-contraception-and-the-court">slew of lawsuits</a>.</p><p>On Friday, the administration offered the details of a compromise. The proposed new rule makes sure employees at religious nonprofits have access to birth control but provides an additional buffer between the church-related institutions and contraceptive coverage. Insurance companies would pick up the tab for contraception and would do the work of notifying employees of religiously affiliated institutions that they are eligible under a separate, individual policy – one that is provided wholly by the insurance company.</p><p>That’s still not good enough for some on the right. The<a href="http://www.becketfund.org/hhsannouncement1/"> Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a>, the <a href="http://www.frc.org/newsroom/updated-hhs-mandate-continues-attack-on-religious-freedom">Family Research Council</a> and several anti-abortion groups promptly attacked the new proposal.</p><p>The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has yet to weigh in yet. The bishops say they are studying the proposal. <em>Washington Post</em> columnist E.J. Dionne is hopeful that the church hierarchy will <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-catholic-church-wins-on-contraception-coverage/2013/02/01/94a3eb80-6cb0-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html">accept the plan</a> and let the nation move on.</p><p>I’m less optimistic.</p><p>The fact is, the administration is bending over backwards to appease these religious groups. Obama and officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have gone out of their way to make sure that aggressive sectarian lobbies aren’t offended by something that has never been any of these clerics’ business: whether people choose to use birth control.</p><p>Yet no matter what the Obama team does, these far-right religious groups are never satisfied.</p><p>We need to take a step back and take a deeper look at what’s really going on here. As I noted in <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/may-2012-church-state/featured/sex-sects-and-the-battle-over-contraception">a story </a>I wrote about this issue last year, the bishops, aided by some allies in the fundamentalist Protestant community, have long opposed birth control. (Most fundamentalists don’t oppose all contraceptives, but do single out some kinds they consider to be “abortifacients.”)</p><p>Prior to 1965, these groups were powerful enough to put laws in place in some states banning the sale and distribution of contraceptives – for <em>anyone</em>, even married couples. The Supreme Court struck these measures down (as they applied to married couples) in a landmark ruling called <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496"><em>Griswold v. Connecticut</em>.</a></p><p>Religious zealots are still fighting the issues raised by <em>Griswold</em>. They lost that case badly – and certainly they’ve lost in the court of public opinion since then – but the health care battle gave them new life, and they <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/birth-control-compromise-religious-right/61717/">ran with it</a>.</p><p>An issue that had been dormant for many years suddenly sprang to life. It’s now being seriously argued that an individual’s private decision to use birth control somehow offends the alleged religious liberty rights – and the “conscience” – of giant corporations. The most amazing thing about this argument is that some courts are taking it seriously.</p><p>The Obama administration went out of its way to work out a compromise in this area. It went beyond what the Constitution requires. But now the time has come to realize that there can be no “compromise” with zealots who pine not just for the 1950s but the 1350s.</p><p>The administration’s stated goal is a policy that allows as many Americans as possible to get and use safe and effective forms of birth control. The goal of groups like Becket, the FRC and the strident anti-abortion groups is the opposite: to deny access to as many Americans as possible because they consider use of birth control a sin, and they’ve yet to come to grips with the social changes that have occurred since birth control became widely available in the 1960s.</p><p>There is no common ground here. It’s time to ask a hard question: Why is the administration even listening to, yet along trying to appease, these forces?</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control">birth control</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/family-research-council">Family Research Council</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/affordable-care-act">Affordable Care Act</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/president-barack-obama">President Barack Obama</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ej-dionne">E.J. Dionne</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/us-conference-catholic-bishops">U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops</a></span></div></div>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:54:51 +0000Rob Boston8026 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/new-round-old-fight-why-the-religious-right-rejects-the-obama-compromise#commentsAt Stanford, Clinical Training for Defense of Religious Libertyhttps://au.org/media/in-the-news/at-stanford-clinical-training-for-defense-of-religious-liberty
<div class="field field-name-field-news-source field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The New York Times</div></div></div>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:03:02 +0000Joseph L. Conn7935 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/media/in-the-news/at-stanford-clinical-training-for-defense-of-religious-liberty#commentsTime For A New Hobby?: Craft Company Seeks Right To Make Moral Decisions For Its Employeeshttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/time-for-a-new-hobby-craft-company-seeks-right-to-make-moral-decisions-for
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Religious liberty gives you the right to make decisions for yourself, not others.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>If you’re into crafts, scrapbooking, home improvement or even building model kits, you might be familiar with Hobby Lobby. The nationwide store chain sells a variety of products for fans of these and other pastimes.</p><p>What you might not know is that Hobby Lobby considers itself a religious enterprise. Its mission statement lays it right out. The firm’s goal is, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”</p><p>This wouldn’t be a problem in many cases. But Hobby Lobby has decided that its business plan of glorifying God is in conflict with federal law. And it has decided it has a right not to follow that law.</p><p>The fight is over the so-called “contraceptive mandate.” You might recall that under the Affordable Care Act, most companies are now required to adopt a health insurance plan that includes no-cost birth control. The thinking was that since so many Americans use birth control (and birth-control pills have uses beyond preventing pregnancy) it is essential for good public health to include it in employee plans.</p><p>Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate. But firms like Hobby Lobby are not. After all, selling craft kits and acrylic paint is hardly a religious endeavor. The firm employs thousands of people all over the country, and all of them will lose an essential health service if Hobby Lobby prevails in court.</p><p>Things are not going well for the firm so far. A federal appeals court refused to grant the company an emergency order exempting it from the mandate. The company took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since this is a preliminary skirmish, the issue landed before Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not the entire court. Sotomayor <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/contraceptives-mandate-left-intact-for-now/#more-156985">rejected</a> Hobby Lobby’s request for an injunction.</p><p>Just to be clear: This was preliminary legal battle over an injunction. Courts ruled that Hobby Lobby must comply with the mandate while it continues to pursue its legal claim in court. The case isn’t over.</p><p>And how did the firm react to this? It issued a statement vowing to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hobby-lobby-contraception-20130101,0,6307683.story">ignore the law</a>.</p><p>“They’re not going to comply with the mandate,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Catholic-oriented legal group that is representing Hobby Lobby, said in a statement. “They’re not going to offer coverage for abortion-inducing drugs in the insurance plan.”</p><p>Under the law, companies that refuse to comply with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act can be fined. In Hobby Lobby’s case, the fines could exceed $1 million per day.</p><p>I say bring on the fines. Hobby Lobby exists to sell arts and craft supplies. Many of its employees, I would guess, are getting by on minimum wage. They have every right to a comprehensive health plan, one that leaves the decision of whether to use birth control where it belongs – in the hands of the individual.</p><p>The owners of Hobby Lobby obviously feel strongly that use of birth control is immoral. That’s fine. They should never be forced to use it. But they want more than that, much more. They want the right to make that decision for everyone in their employ. They seek the legal right to impose their religiously based view of birth control on those who don’t share it; they want to impose it on people who could very well be harmed by their inability to access contraceptives.</p><p>To Hobby Lobby’s owners, this is “religious freedom.” It’s not; it is a distortion of that principle. Religious liberty gives you the right to make decisions for yourself, not others.</p><p>The issue of the contraceptive mandate remains active in the federal courts. Last week, an appeals court, also acting on a request for an injunction, <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/religious-employer-wins-big-temporarily/">ruled in favor</a> of a religious employer.</p><p>As the cases bubble up to the appeals court level, we might start to see more clarity from the courts. Americans United recently filed an amicus brief in case pending before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, <a href="https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/companies-do-not-have-the-right-to-impose-owners-religion-onto-employees-says">advising the court </a>not to grant a Missouri mining company the right to impose the owner’s religious views on employees.</p><p>Many legal observers believe this matter could end up at the Supreme Court. Perhaps so. It hasn’t yet, and until it does, firms like Hobby Lobby are expected to obey the law. If they won’t, if they believe they have some sort of divine right to make decisions for others, they had better be prepared to bust out their checkbooks.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/reproductive-health-conscience-clauses-for-religious-objectors">Reproductive Health &amp; Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/hobby-lobby">Hobby Lobby</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/birth-control-mandate">birth control mandate</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/contraceptives">contraceptives</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span></div></div>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0000Rob Boston7892 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/time-for-a-new-hobby-craft-company-seeks-right-to-make-moral-decisions-for#commentsJust Say No: Supreme Court Should Skip Elmbrook Church Graduation Casehttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/just-say-no-supreme-court-should-skip-elmbrook-church-graduation-case
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Public schools should not hold graduations in religious environments. Doing so sends a message that non-believers should stay away. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Five days before Christmas, the Religious Right delivered a most unwelcome gift to the U.S. Supreme Court – <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/elmbrook-church-graduation-case-could-go-to-supreme-court-ef84rqc-184568101.html">a petition asking the high court to hear a case</a> involving public school graduation ceremonies held in a church.</p><p>Back in 2009, Americans United <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/september-2012-church-state/featured/caps-in-the-air">filed suit in federal court on behalf of nine students, graduates, and parents</a> who objected that the Elmbrook School District near Milwaukee, Wisc., used Elmbrook Church to host high school graduation ceremonies.</p><p>Americans United explained that holding graduations in the religious environment of the church violates the Constitution. The mega-church outside Milwaukee failed to remove religious symbols and texts during the graduation ceremonies. In fact, students and parents sat in pews with Bibles and hymnal books directly in front of them, and also saw church promotional materials telling children that they were “God’s Little Lambs” and inviting all attendees to return to the church so that they can “know how to become a Christian.”</p><p>Elmbrook Church even displayed a large cross, which church officials refused to cover, in the sanctuary where graduation ceremonies were held.</p><p>The mega-church also attacks the beliefs and identities of some of the students and parents who had to go to the church to attend their graduations. The church condemns atheists as people “who think they are smarter than God.” It refers to homosexuality as “not an acceptable lifestyle” and “contrary to God’s will.”</p><p>Americans United noted that there are many non-religious facilities available for the graduation ceremonies, and other school districts in the area make use of them.</p><p>A federal court ruled against AU, and a three-judge appeals court did as well. But AU attorneys pursued another appeal, and a 10-judge panel from the 7<sup>th</sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the earlier decisions, voting 7-3 in favor of Americans United this year.</p><p>Writing for the majority, Judge Joel M. Flaum said holding a public school commencement in the Elmbrook Church sanctuary conveyed “an impermissible message of endorsement” of religion and was “religiously coercive.”</p><p>Flaum added that “conducting a public school graduation ceremony in a church — one that among other things featured staffed information booths laden with religious literature and banners with appeals for children to join ‘school ministries’ — runs afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.”</p><p>But did that home run of a decision persuade the Religious Right to give up? Sadly no. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Religious Right-allied legal outfit based in Washington, D.C., has asked the Supreme Court to take up this case. </p><p>“Religion is not asbestos, and the Constitution does not require the government to treat churches as contaminated buildings that are uniquely unfit for public events,” Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund, told the <em>Milwaukee</em> <em>Journal Sentinel</em>.</p><p>No one is suggesting that religion is asbestos, but that doesn’t mean public schools should hold graduations in religious environments. Doing so sends a message that non-believers should stay away. </p><p>“Public schools serve an incredibly diverse population,” AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said in September. “It is vitally important for our schools to make all students feel welcome, regardless of their views about religion.”</p><p>The U.S. Supreme Court has a lot of serious issues to weigh in on these days from healthcare mandates to same-sex marriage. The Elmbrook case has been decided correctly by a lower court, and further consideration of the matter would be a waste of the high court’s valuable time. </p><p>As the <em>Journal Sentinel </em>noted, the U.S. Supreme Court accepts less than two percent of the thousands of petitions it receives annually. Let’s hope the Elmbrook case is among the 98 percent.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/use-religious-buildings-schools">Use of Religious Buildings by Schools</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/elmbrook-school-district">Elmbrook School District</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/wisconsin">Wisconsin</a></span></div></div>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:42:06 +0000Simon Brown7859 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/just-say-no-supreme-court-should-skip-elmbrook-church-graduation-case#commentsSupremely Scary: Justice Thomas’ Approach To Church-State Relations Is Truly Frightening https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/supremely-scary-justice-thomas%E2%80%99-approach-to-church-state-relations-is-truly
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the 50 states are free to &#039;establish&#039; any religion they want. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>It’s Halloween, so be prepared to see some scary things today. I’m expecting a full complement of neighborhood ghosts and goblins at the house tonight for trick or treat, but they can’t faze me. I’ve already had my scare for the day. It came in the form of a 19-page rant by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.</p><p>The high court, you see, has been trying to decide what to do with a case out of Utah dealing with crosses that were displayed along highways as memorials to members of the highway patrol who died in the line of duty.</p><p>A federal appeals court ruled that the 12-foot by 6-foot crosses must go, since they are on state land. Furthermore, they are crosses. The cross is the central symbol of the Christian faith. It does not memorialize non-Christians.</p><p>The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in August 2010 in a case brought by American Atheists, said that the sectarian displays violate church-state separation. The three-judge panel noted that observers were likely to see the large symbols, put up by the Utah Highway Patrol Association with the approval of state officials, as government preference for Christianity.</p><p>“Here, we conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity,” the court said. “The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity, and they do so standing alone (as opposed to it being part of some sort of display involving other symbols). That cross conspicuously bears the imprimatur of a state entity, the [Utah Highway Patrol], and is found primarily on public land.”</p><p>The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a conservative Catholic-oriented legal group, appealed to the Supreme Court. A host of Religious Right legal groups joined the fray, and they bombarded the high court with petitions imploring the justices to take the case.</p><p>The Alliance Defense Fund went so far as to <a href="http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/cross-purpose-religious-right-lawyers-secularize-christian-symbol-to-get">argue</a> that the cross, which, I repeat, is universally recognized as the unifying symbol of Christianity, in this case is really used to “convey the nonreligious messages of individualized commemoration and roadway safety.”</p><p>Amazing, isn’t it? Religious Right groups are so eager to get crosses on public land that they are willing to argue that the symbol isn’t religious!</p><p>At Americans United, we were worried that some members of the Supreme Court might find this argument appealing. We’ve closely watched the case, <em>Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists</em>, and our Legal Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief.</p><p>But this morning the court said it won’t hear another appeal of the case, effectively putting an end to the matter.</p><p>Justice Thomas was not pleased. In <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/103111zor.pdf">his dissent</a>, he attacks the Supreme Court’s rulings in the area of religious symbols displays, saying this entire body of law has spawned confusion in lower courts. In fact, Thomas goes on to attack all of the high court’s rulings in the area of the Establishment Clause – that part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” According to Thomas, the court’s decisions in this area “have gone hopelessly awry.”</p><p>Perhaps most shockingly, Thomas once again states his view that the First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions apply only to the federal government. In his view, the 50 states are free to “establish” any religion they want. In Thomas’ world, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was apparently never ratified.</p><p>There is so much wrong with Thomas’ assertions that it would take a much longer article to respond in full. I’ll summarize them like this: Thomas’ view of the U.S. Constitution is mired in the middle of the 19th century, and his views on church-state relations, I fear, come from the 13th.</p><p>Thankfully, Thomas was unable to muster any support for his wall-wrecking scheme. (He appears to have gone too far even for his often-partner, Justice Antonin Scalia.) The court won’t be using this case to overturn decades of church-state law. We can breathe a sigh of relief over that.</p><p>But let’s remain diligent. There will be other cases, and there will be more opportunities for the Religious Right to persuade the Supreme Court to lower the church-state wall. Thomas was rebuffed today. Who can say about tomorrow?</p><p>The theocrats among us have certain goals: They want their symbols erected in public places. They want their version of Christianity taught in schools. They want their religion to be favored by the government. They want public policy to be based on their narrow reading of the Bible. (And, by the way, they want you to pay for it.)</p><p>To me, that agenda is scarier than any vampire, wolfman, ghoul or zombie.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/legal-foundations-church-state-separation">Legal Foundations of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/becket-fund-for-religious-liberty">Becket Fund for Religious Liberty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/utah">Utah</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/clarence-thomas">Clarence Thomas</a></span></div></div>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:25:50 +0000Rob Boston6281 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/supremely-scary-justice-thomas%E2%80%99-approach-to-church-state-relations-is-truly#comments